Flimsy pretext for federal action

lllOOPS STILT. AT OXFORD
'Flimsy Pretext' For Federal Action
BY DAVID LAWRENCE
WASHINGTON
AMERICANS ARE QUICK to erftleiM
cept in case of "insurrection." Under the
Constitution, the preservation of law and
ottlor is a stale function. If the federal
government can at any time use troops,
with the excuse that order doesn't prevail
locally, apd if there Is no way to review in
ihe courts whether the federal government
acting arbitrarily or justly, then the
people of the United States are in a dilemma analogous to that which confronts
the people of a totalitarian state.
These observations are occaSion<q\ hjt a
lews dispatch the other ti
hitherto secret i
Namara, secretary of defer
leased by a House subcommittee on appro-]
priations. He was testifying about the conJ
tinued presence of federal troops at tha
University of Mississippi six months after
'he federal court order has been ordered
by the university. He said:
"We are very anxious to withdraw the
troops and, given any reason to believe
that the local authorities would maintain
order,,we would certainly withdraw them
immediately."
When asked whether the assurance must
he satisfactory to him .or to Atty. Gen.
Robert F. Kennedy, the defense secretary
replied, "Satisfactory to me."
Conscience Of Men
NOW MR. McNAMARA is said to be a
scientious public servant, but long af
No Integration Law
THE STATUTES CITED by the administration for the sending of troops to Mississippi were passed in 1861 and 1871, when a
state of organized rebellion by armed
forces had occurred. These statutes refer
lo opposition or obstruction of "the laws
of the United States." But no laws have
ever been passed by Congress requiring
integration or specifying that a university
may not be the judge of the admissibility
of applicants.
A federal court order written in the
.broadest language was issued last year
When Meredith, was admitted, but since
then there has been no ci i
iitualiiin. Vol niiipy. fed-
troops remain on duty at Oxford. W
just the same, a*H«ifen*£¥4olUw. o.
taxpayers' money have been and are being
spent without their consent in this, questionable adventure in presidential politics. ;
The same point of criticism was made in
these dispatches in 1957 in connection with i
the improper use.uffederal jbjjgps in Little'
'Any American critic of the Communist
autocracy will, therefore, find himself hard
pnl today lo argue .Hint in the United States [
sesses arbitrary power, but is subject to a.
written constitution and explicit orders of
the courts. Every day that the federal j
troops remain on duty on and around the:
campus of the University of Mississippi-
after Meredith has been admitted and has
I nearly two terms as a student—
,■ I'ni
may bother him for having made the foregoing statements. Even if the State of
Mississippi now were to seek an injunction
in the federal courts to end the improper)
use of federal troops, this would hardly
provide a practical form of relief. For
[some Ingenious way has to be devised to
set up the question for a ruling by the
courts. The American people, in the meantime, are supposed to rely on the conscience of men in public office to adhere to
the Constitution.
Even assuming; that the admission of
James Meredith, Negro student, to the
University of Mississippi was morally justified, despite the university's ruling that he
had not fulfilled the requirements for admission, the question arises as to whether
a proper objecth ' "'
ever be sought b
The original 'court order
Meredith be '
university nor anybody else shoulil interfere with his "admission to continued attendance." There is no such interference
today, and there hasn't been for months.
Has the federal government a right to
maintain federal troops Indefinitely on the
scene just because It thinks a threat to his
"continued attendance" could sohw day
arise? Who is to pass judgment on the
imaginary threat?
Flimsy pretexts are being used to I
federal army on duty in Mississippi.
pediency is the rationalized doctrine of
many a dictatorship. Nikita Khrushchev
.can order the arrest and imprisonment of
anyone he pleases. Americans "
themselves that this couldn't happen in
free America. But several proclamations
and executive orders have been issued
which claim the right to ignore the
and local governments, on which the Constitution imposes the obligation to preserve
order. The federal government can, under
the Constitution, intervene

Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.

This material may be protected under Title 17 of the U. S. Copyright Law which governs the making of photocopies or reproductions of copyrighted materials. You may use the digitized material for private study, scholarship, or research.

lllOOPS STILT. AT OXFORD
'Flimsy Pretext' For Federal Action
BY DAVID LAWRENCE
WASHINGTON
AMERICANS ARE QUICK to erftleiM
cept in case of "insurrection." Under the
Constitution, the preservation of law and
ottlor is a stale function. If the federal
government can at any time use troops,
with the excuse that order doesn't prevail
locally, apd if there Is no way to review in
ihe courts whether the federal government
acting arbitrarily or justly, then the
people of the United States are in a dilemma analogous to that which confronts
the people of a totalitarian state.
These observations are occaSion